510 S.W.3d 821
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Christopher and Andrea Klenakis divorced in 2013; their approved property-settlement agreement required Christopher to pay alimony that would terminate upon Andrea’s death, remarriage, or cohabitation with an unrelated man.
- Christopher petitioned in July 2015 to terminate alimony, alleging Andrea was cohabiting with boyfriend Travis Cook.
- Evidence showed a long-term intimate relationship: Travis visited nearly daily, spent the night with Andrea about four nights per week, kept clothing/toiletries and mail at Andrea’s home, and was listed on delivery/payment documents for appliances at her address.
- Andrea admitted the items belonged to Travis but testified they maintained separate residences and that she did not consider them to be living together.
- The trial court found they were in an intimate relationship and stayed at each other’s homes frequently but concluded the evidence did not meet the burden to terminate alimony; Christopher appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Andrea was "cohabiting" with a man so as to trigger contractual termination of alimony | Christopher: Andrea and Travis lived together in practice (frequent overnight stays, shared belongings, joint purchases, Travis’s mail and appliance delivery to Andrea’s address) | Andrea: They maintained separate residences; Travis had his own home and washer/dryer; visits did not equal living together | Reversed: Court of Appeals held the undisputed facts constitute "cohabitation" under Arkansas law and reversed the denial of termination of alimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Collins, 471 S.W.3d 665 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (defines "cohabitation" as living together with an emphasis on a sexual relationship; living under same roof and having sex implicates cohabitation)
- Artman v. Hoy, 257 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2007) (alimony arising from agreement is contractual and nonmodifiable; apply contract-construction rules)
- Hunter v. Haunert, 270 S.W.3d 339 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for reversing circuit court factual findings)
- Brown v. Brown, 284 S.W.3d 17 (Ark. 2008) (deference to trial court on witness credibility when reviewing facts)
- Jones v. Abraham, 999 S.W.2d 698 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate review: no deference on pure questions of law)